Aaron Bell

And again, Keir Starmer is deliberately trying to misled people. The whole point is that the phone was 'stolen' a week AFTER No.10 officials had discussed the possibility of parliament demanding to see the messages.

Funny how the Speaker now says he “can’t” tell the PM to answer the question. Yet when Boris Johnson was in office, he did exactly that—on record. Same chair, different standards.

BREAKING Morgan McSweeney did not tell the Metropolitan Police who he was or where he worked when he called 999 after his phone was stolen The Metropolitan Police has released a transcript of the call and said that it was not aware 'of the victims employment or the particular security risks associated with his device or material on it The call took place on 20 October, 2025 at 22.30. McSweeney stated that it was a government phone Here is the verbatim transcript of the call in full: Call handler: Police, what's your emergency? Caller: Oh, hello, someone just robbed my phone. Call handler: Did they actually take it from you just now? Caller: Yeah Call handler: How did they get away? Caller: So he's on a bike. He's come onto the pavement to grab my phone and cycled off on a bike. Call handler: And where did this happen? Caller: It happened in Belgrave Street* in Westminster. *We now know that the incident took place in Belgrave Road, Westminster. The call handler inputs Belgrave Street and it provides a matching road name in Tower Hamlets, which is what is recorded in error. There are further references to locations near to Belgrave Street in Tower Hamlets later in the call, which compounds the issue. Call handler: And whose phone are you using now? Caller: I've got two phones. I'm using my personal one. That was my work one. Call handler: Can I take the phone number for this phone you're calling on? Caller: Yeah, 07XXXXXXXXX. Call handler: Thank you. And you said Belgrave Street, yeah? Caller: Yeah, just kind of going back to the location. Call handler: Don't put yourself at any risk. It's not worth it over a phone. I appreciate it’s frustrating. Call handler: And which way did they go towards, this suspect on a bike? Caller: He went. He travels north. I saw him for a few blocks. Call handler: So where were you when you last saw him? Have you got any idea? Caller: Yeah, so. Call handler: Did you get up to Stepney? Caller: Let me tell you where I got to. I'm just going back to where I can. Caller: So he turned right. Sorry, he turned left. There's a park on top of the road and he turned left there. Call handler: Stepney Green Park, ok. Caller: Yeah. He turned left there. Call handler: Can you remember anything about his appearance? Caller: Yeah, he was young. He was a black guy. He was on a bike. Call handler: About how young? Call handler: Just a guess. Caller: Teens. Late teens. Call handler: Was he skinny, tall, any idea? Caller: Yeah. He was slim. He was about average height. Call handler: Was it an e bike or pedal bike? Caller: Pedal bike. Call handler: Have you got a tracker on the phone at all? Caller: I do. It’s a government phone. Call handler: And it's your work phone. What kind of phone is it? Caller: It’s an iPhone. Call handler: Do you know what model? Caller: I don't. [PAUSE] Call handler: Right, just bear with me a second. Call handler: We would normally deploy to see you but at the moment, we are having extreme demand on police officers. So, I don't know if you would prefer to make your way home and make a crime report over the phone or online tomorrow. I mean, I can complete one with you now. I can pass this down, you can wait, but I honestly do not know how long you'll be waiting, Caller: If I could complete it now that would be good. Call handler: Ok. Call handler: What's your name, please? Caller: My name is XXXXXXXXXX. Call handler: XXXXXXXXXX? (repeats name back) Caller: Yeah. Call handler: And your date of birth, please? Caller: It's XXXXXX Call handler: Is XXXXXXXXX (surname) all one word? Caller: Yeah, (spells surname). Call handler: And what's your home address? Caller: (Provides non-London address) Call handler: So you live in XXXXXX? Caller: Yeah. Call handler: Are you staying anywhere while you're in London? Caller: Yeah. Call handler: Sorry, it just takes a little bit longer to deal with an address outside of the Met. I do apologise. Caller: It’s ok. Call handler: And may I take an email for you please (name)? Caller: Yeah, it's XXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXX.com (personal email address) Call handler: You'll get a copy of the preliminary crime report through to that email. Call handler: How would you like to be contacted by an investigating officer? By email or phone? Caller: Phone, please. Or either, I’m not fussed. Call handler: Have you got any finance apps on the phone? Caller: No. Call handler: You'll need to change any passwords for any logins you do have on the phone. Caller: Yeah, okay. Call handler: You're not vulnerable in any way. Are you? Caller: No I’m not. Call handler: Do you believe there was any CCTV near where the incident happened? Caller: Might be. [Inaudible] away from location. Call handler: Don't worry. Don't return. No, I'll just put at the moment unknown. And obviously, if we find out more, we find out more. Call handler: Are you willing to make a statement to support the investigation? Caller: Definitely. Call handler: So what time did he actually snatch the phone? Caller: About two minutes before I rung you and I chased, and then I rang my office to get the phone tracked and then I rang you. Call handler: Okay, cool. It would have been about 25 past that you were robbed. Caller: A little before, about 23 minutes past, I think. Call handler: 23? Little bit before? Okay. [PAUSE] Call handler: Just bear with me, I’m just trying to get this system to accept the address. Sorry about this. I won't keep you much longer. Call handler: If you do get any tracking updates, what you do is you give us call back if the phone is stationary. Caller: Yeah. Call handler: And we can review attending then. We can't guarantee attending a moving phone at all, but if it's been stationary for a few… Call handler: It’s not accepting your address. Caller: I can give you my London address? Call handler: It’s alright. I've nearly got this to work. Caller: Okay Call handler: How long you staying in London? Caller: So I come to London every week. I work in London. Call handler: Oh, I see. Okay, that makes sense. Caller: So I'll be here till Thursday. Call handler: Okay. [PAUSE] Call handler: As I was trying to say, I've got this sorted now, so I'll be texting you a crime reference number in the next few moments. Along with the crime reference number will be a CHS reference number. If you need to give us a call back, you can call back giving that reference number from any device, and then we'll be able to link it straight away to your crime report and review deploying. We will need to know a bit more details about the phone itself, so when you're contacted by the investigating officer, or if you do get tracking details, you can call us back with the IMEI number, and the type of phone that it is that would be super helpful. Caller: All right, thank you. Call handler: All right, I’m just about to text you through the crime reference number now. Caller: Thank you so much. You’ve been really helpful. Call handler: No worries. All right, (name). You take care now, okay? Bye. Caller: Bye bye.

I think this is very foolish. We should not be creating loads of ad hoc implicit taxes in the system. - We are forcing people to constantly 'have their wits about them' when they earn, spend, and save. The system can't be trusted to treat people fairly, so they are obliged to learn its Byzantine rules. - We're giving people huge incentives to hide income, something that we simply do not have the state capacity to track or stop. - We are giving people a disincentive to earning and saving money closer to a 60-80% tax rate at many margins, but pretending we are a low-tax country. It has to stop. We need to create a new norm, probably backed up by a reformed OBR, strongly stigmatising off-balance-sheet taxes and spending like this.

I'm still trying to get round the fact that in 72 hours we've gone from "he lost his phone a year before the Mandelson scandal broke" to "OK, he actually lost his phone a week after we strategised how to deal with parliament trying to get his Mandelson messages".

This was published by Tim Shipman on 14 February. It details how in the period up to 13 October, 2025 Labour officials became worried a motion would be put to parliament demanding the release of Morgan McSweeney's messages to Peter Mandelson. On October 20 McSweeney reported his mobile had been stolen.

I got criticised for writing this last week. But Keir Starmer's statement to the House that due process was followed in the Mandelson appointment was a straightforward lie. People may not care. People may think Starmer is excused because Boris also used to lie. But it was a lie.

This is, by some distance, the most contemptible performance I’ve seen from a sitting Prime Minister at PMQs. Quite staggering to think Starmer once posed as the man who would restore faith in the conduct of our elected officials.

🚨 WATCH: Tory MP Andrew Snowden attacks Keir Starmer's "pre-scripted nonsense" answers which bear "no resemblance" to the questions asked Starmer: "They don't want to talk about the war because they supported going into the war without thinking of the consequences" #PMQs

Hello, there 👋 Have you heard David Lammy MP and Sarah Sackman MP talking about people stealing bottles of whisky and swiping mobile telephones as examples of people who should not get jury trials? Well. I’d like to tell you a story. 🪡 🧵

A couple of months ago a senior No.10 advisor told me to "reflect" after calling Keir Starmer a liar. After the past week, I have reflected. Keir Starmer is the worst Prime Ministerial liar of my adult lifetime > Mail on Sunday > dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…

Hard to watch fomer colleagues, friends from my intake year, serious MPs who did serious work in previous Parliaments, as they sit on Govt benches, squirming and trying to 'spin' this absolute horror, defending the worst PM in modern history. They are better than this #Mandelson

Since everybody else seems to be writing about the end of the COVID Inquiry, I've done the same (including a discussion of what "locking down a week earlier" actually means)

EXC: The US first asked about the use of UK bases to attack Iran on February 11, SIXTEEN days before the first missiles flew. The first warship HMS Dragon will not sail until next week, by which point at least 26 days will have passed spectator.com/article/whose-…

@AshleyDalton_MP Very best wishes to you, Ashley.

I have taken the decision to step down from my ministerial responsibilities to allow me to focus on my job representing you, the people of West Lancashire, while I continue to receive oral chemotherapy treatment. My letter to the PM below 👇

We knew on Saturday that our allies in Canada and Australia had backed the action taken by the United States and Israel. Yet Keir Starmer still couldn’t tell the British people where our country stood or whether the UK would allow the use of our own airbases. It took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Middle East and a UK base in Cyprus before Starmer finally approved the use of our bases, and this morning the Foreign Secretary still can’t say if the Labour government supports the action against Iran. Iran’s regime has funded international terrorism, attacked British nationals, brutally repressed its own citizens calling for freedom, and continues to try and develop a nuclear weapon. It should not be beyond our government to say they welcome the US-Israel taking action. But, particularly in the wake of the by-election last week, the Labour government are too scared to say what is obvious to the rest of us. In towns and cities across Britain there are large blocs of voters – that Labour see as their voters – whose political loyalties are swayed by conflicts in the Middle East, not the British national interest. So we watch our Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers squirm and obfuscate in interviews, because they cannot say what needs to be said because too many of their voters do not want to hear it. It isn’t ‘international law’ or principle. It’s pure, partisan, political calculations from a party that has surrendered its right to govern our country. I will always act in our national interest.

I get Starmer is in a tricky position. Problem is that he appears to regard international law as a substitute for moral judgment/leadership. Like he hopes it will dictate what to do. It's the wrong way round: legal frameworks are derived from our sense of what's right and wrong.

Never before has the United Kingdom been so weak on the international stage, and that weakness is directly a result of Keir Starmer being the Prime Minister. Abandoning allies, too weak to act. A shameful period in British Foreign policy.

Starmer really is pathetic. This equivocal language, neither for nor against, weak and woolly, timid beyond belief, is unfitting for a national leader. If he just made a decision he would generate respect, if not agreement. But he can’t, he won’t. What is the point of him?

‘Do not feel sorry for Labour MPs.’ Kemi Badenoch explains why she will ‘absolutely not apologise’ for her ‘paedo defender’ jibe towards the government.